What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Explain Baseball HOF Voting To Me (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
I understand that not every player will get voted in. And I understand that some of the voters hold some bizarre beliefs. And I know that there are ramifications to the whole steroid issue. I don't care about those, and I don't really care (in this case) who makes it or not. What I care about is the logic (or lack of it) in voting patterns.

As many people know, I am an advocate for Jim Rice's induction into the baseball HOF. For the sake of this thread, whether you agree or disagree makes no difference. I was reading at length some articles on Rice's progress over the years and by all accounts his best chance for induction will be next year with a week class of first time candidates.

In the paper, they listed Rice's vote totals and percentages over the years, and I am astounded at how little sense this process makes. Rice debuted with roughly 140 votes and since then his vote total has increased by over 200 votes. So question one is, did Rice suddenly improve his on-field performance in the past 13 years that there is new data or results for voters to review? Either you are a HOFer or you're not.

Secondly, Rice's totals from year to year have on one or two occasions gone up or down by as many as 50 votes from year to year. So question two would be, how could someone vote for him one year and not the next? IMO, if you vote for a guy once, you should be forced to vote for him in all future votes (unless some major negative news on that player broke).

Thirdly, even though his vote totals have been going up, apparently there are more voters (maybe more people submitting ballots) that has caused his PERCENTAGE to start going down.

The other one that I heard today was from Jayson Stark of ESPN, who basically outlined that however many years ago Lee Smith had something like twice as many votes as Goose Gossage. Yet in the recent balloting Gossage just missed induction and Smith's totals have dropped and he had a smaller percentage than several years ago. Comparing these two relievers in the voting process, effectively things made almost a 180 degree turn. Again, what conditions have changed that mandates Gossage to shoot up the vote charts and Smith to start listing like a sinking ship?

Since this is mostly rhetorical, I don't really expect an all inclusive answer or explanation that makes any sense, but I find the whole process mystifying.

 
There isn't a single thing in MLB that caters to us the fans, why should the HOF be any different. I've gotten to the point where I still love the game of baseball but MLB disgusts me. They've done a very good job of running it right into the ground.

 
Several factors can alter voting percentages from year to year:

a) different voters

b) different candidate pool

c) as the players get closer to the cutoff voters become more empathetic historically

off the top of my head

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several factors can alter voting percentages from year to year:a) different votersb) different candidate poolc) as the players get closer to the cutoff voters become more empathetic historicallyoff the top of my head
Plus -- and this is probably wishful thinking -- maybe the voters actually do more analysis and change their mind.
 
Several factors can alter voting percentages from year to year:a) different votersb) different candidate poolc) as the players get closer to the cutoff voters become more empathetic historicallyoff the top of my head
Plus -- and this is probably wishful thinking -- maybe the voters actually do more analysis and change their mind.
IMO, it's a combo of the different voters coupled with the completely arbitrary interpretation of stats. Baseball is absolutely obsessed with stats, yet virtually noone looks at them objectively. They see an era of 4.00, that pitcher can't get into the HOF with those numbers....they don't care if they pitched in Coors field and amassed 100 wins there....if that era isn't lower, they are ignored. The next year, another group might look at it differently etc. IMO, things such as character and integrity (when it comes to the sanctification of the game) are much more important. But it's clear that a lot of the voters treat it as a popularity contest and/or statistical accomplishment show.
 
Sportswriters do not tend to be all that analytical, as a group. Their HOF votes appear to contain a measure of arbitrariness, at least that is how it would appear to laymen like ourselves. It can especially maddening for an exercise such as yours, tracking a favorite player's progress over the years.

Why Votes Go Down

I mentioned in another thread how almost every returning player saw his %s drop this year. Essentially, only Goose got better. The best explanation for this is that there are enough voters who will only vote for X number of guys on each ballot, and it appears that X is a very small number, perhaps 2 or 3. There seem to be as many opinions about what the HOF should be as there are voters. I think we should take the HOF for what it is, and judge new candidates accordingly. But, like on this board, there is a contingent of voters who think the HOF is too big, and so will vote for only a couple of guys. With Ripken & Gwynn on the ballot for the first time, this group's approach was enough to cause the other candidates to drop.

Why Votes Go Up

In other balloting years, like 2008 or 2006, this group will all of a sudden vote for a Rice or a Dawson because they are, for that given ballot, one of the top 2-3 candidates available, and the writers want to elect somebody. If for no other reason than that it makes for something to write about, and maybe they'll get to go to Cooperstown in the summer.

Votes can also go up over time as writers hear new arguments for borderline candidates. You call yourself an advocate for Rice, and i'm sure you wouldn't mind if your advocacy could sway enough voters to your point of view. So why should we be surprised when a few voters are actually swayed by a more in-depth look at a given player? Bert Blyleven is a good recent example of this, although he's probably going to have to wait for the Veterans' Committee.

Finally, the herd effect also comes into play. I think we are seeing that with Gossage. It's not necessarily a bad thing (in Goose's case, it's a good thing, imo). Some voters may not have thought much about Gossage his first year or two on the ballot, but seeing reasonably high % voting for him drives more voters to look more closely going forward. I wish the same effect would work for Alan Trammell.

 
I wish the same effect would work for Alan Trammell.
Great thoughts overall. And I've been pimping Trammell for years as well (not that it's helped any).My other pet peeve (which is esentially drifting away from the focus of this thread) is that IMO voters look at total numbers over peak numbers (this applies to football as well).IMO, a player that was at the top of his game for a decade and then called it a day rather than play 5 more years AS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO HIS TEAM while compiling BELOW AVERAGE statistics to pad his stats does not necessarily mean that that player was better because his total stats were higher.For 10-12 years, if you asked any coach, player, fan, or manager the guy YOU DID NOT want to face at the plate it was Jim Rice in the AL and Mike Schmidt in the NL (mid 70s to mid 80s). IMO, those are the guys that should be getting in.As a for instance, while Bert Blyleven was a very good pitcher, I don't recall at any point that people considered him one of the truly elite pitchers. He was Top 5 in wins twice and ERA 7 times in 22 seasons. While he did play on some mediocre teams, I'm not sure how many people would say he was a pitcher that no one wanted to face. He only ranked in the Top 5 in Cy Young balloting 3 times (13% of the years he played).But I digress from the topic at hand . . .By comparison, Rice won the MVP Award and finished Top 5 in the voting 5 other seasons, so basically 6 Top 5 MVP seasons in 16 seasons (38% of the seasons he played).
 
David Yudkin said:
My other pet peeve (which is esentially drifting away from the focus of this thread) is that IMO voters look at total numbers over peak numbers (this applies to football as well).
it's your thread, you can digress all you want.the reason for the above is that it is easier to compare total numbers than to compare peaks. For peak, is it best 3 years? 5? 7? 10? Do the years have to be consecutive? Etc, etc. Doesn't make it right, just looking for a school-girl explanation.
 
David Yudkin said:
oso diablo said:
I wish the same effect would work for Alan Trammell.
Great thoughts overall. And I've been pimping Trammell for years as well (not that it's helped any).My other pet peeve (which is esentially drifting away from the focus of this thread) is that IMO voters look at total numbers over peak numbers (this applies to football as well).IMO, a player that was at the top of his game for a decade and then called it a day rather than play 5 more years AS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO HIS TEAM while compiling BELOW AVERAGE statistics to pad his stats does not necessarily mean that that player was better because his total stats were higher.For 10-12 years, if you asked any coach, player, fan, or manager the guy YOU DID NOT want to face at the plate it was Jim Rice in the AL and Mike Schmidt in the NL (mid 70s to mid 80s). IMO, those are the guys that should be getting in.As a for instance, while Bert Blyleven was a very good pitcher, I don't recall at any point that people considered him one of the truly elite pitchers. He was Top 5 in wins twice and ERA 7 times in 22 seasons. While he did play on some mediocre teams, I'm not sure how many people would say he was a pitcher that no one wanted to face. He only ranked in the Top 5 in Cy Young balloting 3 times (13% of the years he played).But I digress from the topic at hand . . .By comparison, Rice won the MVP Award and finished Top 5 in the voting 5 other seasons, so basically 6 Top 5 MVP seasons in 16 seasons (38% of the seasons he played).
David, your post closely resembles many of mine in the past, as you may recall. I, too, have been stating that Rice should be in. I, too, don't think Blyleven is an obvious choice. My whole argument has been about dominance. If the guy you're looking at was a truly dominant player for an extended time in MLB, he should likely make it. And dominant, in my theory, means that when thinking of that player, you wold say to yourself, "wow, this player is one of the very best, elite, in the league." And when you say this for many years (say, a decade or more, with some exceptions), that player should be in.Rice is a prime example of this.Anyway, the answer to your question is that those voting are generally idiots. Either a player belongs in the HOF or they don't. Any voter who votes for or against a player one year and changes their vote another, should not be voting. If this limits the number of voters to about 9 people, so be it. The rest are just fools anyway.
 
oso diablo said:
Votes can also go up over time as writers hear new arguments for borderline candidates. You call yourself an advocate for Rice, and i'm sure you wouldn't mind if your advocacy could sway enough voters to your point of view. So why should we be surprised when a few voters are actually swayed by a more in-depth look at a given player?
This is the reality, but if a voter isn't taking the necessary time for an in-depth look the first time, they should not be voting.
 
Anyway, the answer to your question is that those voting are generally idiots. Either a player belongs in the HOF or they don't. Any voter who votes for or against a player one year and changes their vote another, should not be voting. If this limits the number of voters to about 9 people, so be it. The rest are just fools anyway.
you'd be dismayed if another 15% of so of voters heard your arguments, and started voting for Rice all of a sudden? Would they be idiots?Voters are beat writers, generally, in the MLB cities. I wouldn't expect them all to digest every nuanced argument for a given player, when there are 20 or so new guys on the ballot every year. I'm glad voters are open to new arguments, and open to changing their minds. It's part of the process, and frankly i enjoy it.But i'm sure you would respond that if you have to consider nuance, then the guy's not a HOFer. And i would counter (as i have in other threads) that a tightening of who is a HOF only moves the line to which players we are considering nuance. Instead of Rice and Blyleven, it becomes Dave Winfield or Steve Carlton or Ryne Sandberg.
 
Anyway, the answer to your question is that those voting are generally idiots. Either a player belongs in the HOF or they don't. Any voter who votes for or against a player one year and changes their vote another, should not be voting. If this limits the number of voters to about 9 people, so be it. The rest are just fools anyway.
you'd be dismayed if another 15% of so of voters heard your arguments, and started voting for Rice all of a sudden? Would they be idiots?
Would I be dismayed? No. Would I think they're all idiots for not voting that way the first time? Yes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top